Was Jacqueline Fernandez Unaware Of Illicit Origin Of Gifts By Conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar?

In the ongoing ₹200 crore money laundering case involving conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar, Bollywood star Jacqueline Fernandez’s legal team argued before the Delhi High Court that she had no knowledge of the illicit origin of the gifts she received from him.

Her counsel emphasized that she was unaware these items were linked to the alleged criminal proceeds of Chandrashekhar’s activities.

Arguments Presented on Jacqueline’s Innocence

On Wednesday, November 13,  Jacqueline Fernandez’s counsel presented part of their argument, disputing the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) charge sheet that implicates her in the case.

Senior advocate Siddharth Agrawal, alongside Prashant Patil and Shakti Pandey, asserted that Jacqueline had no involvement in money laundering and was unaware that the gifts she accepted were potentially linked to criminal funds.

Court Questions Responsibility to Verify Gift Sources

During the hearing, Justice Anish Dayal posed a key question: “Is there a duty upon an adult person to know the source of a gift one receives?” The court has scheduled further arguments for November 26, where Fernandez’s defense team will continue to present their stance.

Jacqueline’s Knowledge of Sukesh’s Background

The ED alleged that Jacqueline did not investigate Sukesh Chandrashekhar’s background, despite being informed through a newspaper article in February 2019.

Her defense team countered this, stating that the article alone did not constitute reliable evidence. They added that Jacqueline initially believed Sukesh’s claims about his political connections, which were reinforced by her interactions with co-accused Pinky Irani.

Accusations of Misleading and Limited Awareness

Fernandez’s counsel argued that Sukesh, who reportedly claimed connections with high-level political figures, misled her. After reading the article, Jacqueline stopped communicating with him. The defense maintains that, while she may have made an error in judgment, she was unaware the gifts were tied to criminal funds, thus not legally responsible for any alleged money laundering involvement.